Anyone else disappointed? by sagrilarus

Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
@Sep7IMus:
Mal has run away when the odds are not in his favour before. But from the dialogue, etc from the movie, I got the feel that it was running for reasons of a coward and not for reasons like before.

Just like any reference from the show, you must provide proper context is there. And from what I've seen, your examples don't hold up to that.

Why not, exactly? I don't think I see the distinction you're making. I figured we all knew the context. How does it change the fact that he ran (with, I think, good reason)?

Feelings, things people said, how he interacted with the crew, etc.

Basically, what I got from the series was if it was an, interesting (oh god oh god we're going to die) moment then he'd be fine running, and do so in a heart beat. Otherwise, it'd be a profit, etc issue.

But in the movie, he didn't seem to have much of a spine when it came to protecting his own until all his "safe houses" were burned to the ground.

"""
In "Heart of Gold" his first idea is for them all to run.
"""
Here he wanted to run because it was the easiest solution. That guy wouldn't have stopped until he as in a box and they weren't equiped for a near the battle he was expecting. Running was the smart move.

But, when they weren't moving, they stayed.

"""
In "Shindig" he says "I never back down from a fight" to which Innara replies, "You do it all the time!"
""""
See above. Plus he's in love with Inara.

"""
And, overall, his basic mode is evade the Alliance, keep moving, run from place to place.
"""
In "Out of Gas", he refered to not wanting to be under the heel of anyone again. No matter how far the Alliance's arm reaches, they could go just a bit further.

Also, being a smuggler, and having a ship with no armorments, it's rather your only option to run (unless you want to get boarded).

Beyond that, until I see the movie again, I can't get anymore specific. Either that or the nausea goes away (too much stress lately).

Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:

Quote:

Mal, I think is more along the lines of fighing for profit and if it is for good as well, the super. But, if push comes to shove, then he'll do it for the right thing. Friends are different though. He'll fight for a friend to the death if need be.

Okay, I agree with that characterization of Mal. How are his actions in the movie any different? I don't remember him running when there was a profit to be made, when fighting would be for the right thing, or when fighting would be for friends/crew. Does he run in any of those instances in the movie? If so, that would seem out of character to me.

People say Mal was darker. I find this silly. Mal wasn't darker, he was angrier. Angrier does not equal darker; just angrier.

Mal was out of character when he let Simon hit him (or didn't hit him back).

It was alot of "little" things like that (plus a few big ones) throughout the movie that told of an entirely different character than the one that I've known and loved all this time.

See above posts for more.

Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:

Quote:

Jayne, does it for profit clear and simple. It has always been his guiding light. There are times in the show when he did things not for profit, but there has been other circumstances that provide adequate motivation for this to happen.

ie When Jayne goes to save Mal from Niska. First off, this is right after he almost got sucked out into space because of screwing Mal and knows that he exists at that point by the grace of Mal and no other. Plus I think that he will attempt to avoid such non-profit endeavors (remember him calling what they were doing "suicide" while Zoe and Wash were preparing?) but will go along if it will make him look bad. He seems to care about what the others think of him to some degree.

Yeah, I agree with this, too. Though, I might be a little more sympathetic to Jayne than you are, and I might attribute a little more of his eventual helping out in nonprofit fights to some hidden goodness in him rather than just on a desire to look good (though I do think that's there, too).

Oh, it's in there. I forgot to mention that guilt probably played a role as well. Which gets into the good side of him. It just takes a lot to get it out of him.

But, one must also consider that Jayne is probably thinking that if he looses this crew, the ones that have probably treated the best (from series, flashback when Jayne joined the crew) and he wouldn't want to loose that.

I'm rather certain that Jayne's primary motivation is selfish in nature (Jaynestown, tosses partner out of hovercraft 20-30 feet b/c he wants to money). But, that doesn't preclude the possibility of it being partially fueled by some sort of goodness.

There is of course limits. As you say, he's acted with kindness in a few circumstances, but I'd think that this is the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself (see above).

Such as when he tried to avoid the feds in Ariel after calling them when he found out what they did to River. That crossed a line for him. In his mind, Simon and River probably became "closer" to him as they had been screwed by the gov more (or worse) in some ways than he had.

I'm certain that he has a code, just more of an ad hoc one.

But, this is Jayne from the series. A rather complicated fellow that we could probably debate who he actually is for some time.

But the Jayne that was in the movie, was just plain a moron. Sad really.

When I comes to series Jayne, I would think that he is one of those people that if they had the opertunity to go to school they would have done quite well. I think this as he is able to pick up things and jokes that he "shouldn't" be able to given his supposed IQ.

ie When talking to Badger in Shindig he uses pretentious correctly and some other comments, etc.

Other comments place his general knowledge quite low. "She's in congress?" Which is where I think is stupidity shows up most.

At any rate, I've been prattling on for some time now and need to get some work done. Hopefully it wasn't too non-linear for people to understand. I'm told I get that way.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Do you have a link to the script?

Sadly, no. I don't know of any electronic versions. I'm using the Serenity Visual Companion as my reference. (And the script in there isn't a word-for-word of the movie; it's the shooting script, so there are things that didn't make the movie.)

Damn. Oh well, there's always Yule

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
People say Mal was darker. I find this silly. Mal wasn't darker, he was angrier. Angrier does not equal darker; just angrier.

Mal was out of character when he let Simon hit him (or didn't hit him back).

I disagree. Firstly, Mal didn't let Simon hit him. Simon sucker punched him.

Mal then threatens to shoot Simon (in Chinese: "You wanna bullet? You wanna a bullet right in your throat?")

Simon insults him ("You stupid, selfish, son of a whore-").

Mal threatens to shoot Simon again (in English this time: "I'm a hair's breadth from riddling you with holes, Doctor--"). I think the subtext here is: "I'm serious about shooting you, and I'm not gonna trade insults with you. I will kill you if you keep it up."

Simon drops the insult and starts in on what this is all about ("One simple job!")

There is no reason in any of that for Mal to ever throw a punch. It's a waste of time at the end of a bad day. Mal makes clear what he'll tolerate and what the consequences are for Simon. So they settle it with words.

Also, put yourself in Mal's position. You've just killed a man to save him from a horrible death, you've been chased and shot at by Reavers, crashed landed into your own ship at a high rate of speed (crashing into a pile of containers), narrowly avoided being hit by the flaming wreckage of a Reaver ship, and then shot a Reaver who was jumping you. Do you really want to get into a physical fight that serves no purpose?

I wouldn't. Sure, it might feel satisfying, but it'll just drag out what has already been way too long a day. Mal uses the force necessary (verbal threats) to make Simon realize what could come of this. (Mal jumped right to threatening to shoot Simon -- that says to me "I got no patience for a brawl right now. I'll just kill you." Simon gets to his point pretty quick after that.)

That makes sense to me given the character and the situation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:19 PM

@Teraph:
You would have a point if this was after the job and if it was after some time had past so that everyone had cooled down.

As it is, everyone is still geared up and in a massive fightn' adrenaline mood.

1) Series Simon would've never hit Mal (or sucker punched) as he would know what series Mal would've done. Series Simon is a pacifist.

Remember just after he found out about Jayne betraying him and River in Ariel? Series Simon could've gotten him back in some way, but chose another route.

2) Series Mal would've hit him.

In fact, in the series when Simon first came on board and just mentioned that Mal would be good working with the Alliance, Mal hit Simon.

This is a worse infraction in some regards. Mal had just almost died and would've done more than just talk. Remember when the fed mole was on Serenity ep Serenity? Mal just killed him not even a blink. Series Mal would definitly have hit him.

And no, Simon didn't get the point pretty quick. It took acouple tries for Mal to get through to him.

Mal had definitly lost his backbone in more than one way in this movie.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:27 PM

FERREX

I went to watch a movie that was based on a TV series that I fell in love with from the very beginning. I was not disappointed at all.

The arguements about the characters being different, I think some are valid, some not so much so. People acting out of character, well, I didn't see it.

What I did see was the crew of the Serenity placed in a situation that was much larger than they had found themselves in the series. That changes people, I don't care if they're tough like Jayne, wimpy like Simon, or casual cool like Mal.

How far did people expect Mal to get pushed before he said enough?

I don't know. I go to the movies to watch and enjoy the show, not place it under the microscope.

Serenity is far and away my favorite movie. It is far and away better than the Star Wars franchise or anything Rodennberry ever put out. It was a finer TV show than any I had ever seen before.

I'm gonna wear my Browncoat proudly and tip my hat to Joss for sharing his baby with me. Maybe some of you are wearing purple under yours. Us Browncoats don't leave none behind, and that includes Joss and Serenity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:39 PM

I have to post again on this thread because for some reason I'm still awake. I think it's a side effect of the anti-biotics.

Select to view spoiler:

From the point of view of someone who gets a happy everytime river goes crazy and starts hacking people up, this movie was a 10

:) *eg*

I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:42 PM

"simon was a wuss"

did you ever watch this show?

sure, some of the writers had that picture.

But joss has him leaving people to die if they don't help him. and he does a serious mind f*&^ on Jayne.

clearly Joss doesn't see simon's wussiness.

He isn't grunge and brawl, but neither is inara. it's a class thing. he's not a pansy.

I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 7:54 PM

FERREX

"It was important that people understand that the movie isn't the series. The movie is bigger, more epic than anything you can do in a series." - Joss Whedon

Just figured I toss that up there too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:11 PM

SNEAKER98

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
He backed down from Simon. I'll say that again. HE BACKED DOWN FROM SIMON.

How much more do you need it spelled out for you?

I'm sorry.. perhaps I didn't see this in the three times I've seen the movie?

When exactly did Mal back down from Simon?

"I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
-Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:13 PM

Joss of /I hate making movies, I'd much rather be doing a TV show any day/? Anyway, yeah, sure, lots of stuff you can do in a movie you can't do in a show. But now that stuff is done. Joss loves making shows, he's said it many times, so there is more show coming if Joss can help it.

I remember seeing Buffy the movie when it came out. I loved it. It was irreverent sort of clueless with vampires, which was a definite upgrade. But when I saw the show at first I didn't get into it because it wasn't like the movie at all. Then in time I got addicted and now the show is way more precious to me.

This movie is unquestionably way better than that movie. But a show is a show, and this is a firefly fan site :), so, show talk, always valid. anyway, I can't really see it as that separate. but worth seeing again.

The non fans I know liked it okay, but not like the fans, so having seen the show definitely adds something to it.

I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8:40 PM

Dear K,

Many good points, well written.

Some people seem to keep thinking that I or you were suggesting that Simon was inept in the series. No way. But his power was his mind and skill not some quasi-James Bond type who could rescue his sister. Keeping the element of members of an underground resistance getting River out would have been so much better for the depth and fabric of both the personal and the big picture.

Joss has also shifted in his interviews the truth about the Alliance. In FIREFLY it is for sure a fascist type empire. In the show one felt the oppressive atmosphere and paranoia. Also in the show Simon's reason for being was to undo from within River the intent of her torturers to turn her into a military weapon. But for the execs at UNIVERSAL having River be a Terminator was far more box-office!!

I agree about the River doing a Buffy but there is a huge difference. SERENITY is not a mystical world the BuffyVerse is. So the laws of physics apply in FIREFLY/SERENITY.

I still believe Joss is very naive a political structure like the ALLIANCE be it fascist or non fascist would be responsible for far worse things. How else does it feed the wealth of its luxury on the "1st World" core-planets? How many other planets services this with "Mudders" type "Third World" poverty? How many wars is it fighting? How did the Reavers become the way they are?

In the TELEGRAPH article Joss describes the non-Alliance worlds as "strange, archaic or even barbaric" is it beyond his imagination to suggest that an anti-Alliance society could be the most forward thinking and the most enlightened? That among all those planets there could not be a social experiment worth fighting for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Teraph:
You would have a point if this was after the job and if it was after some time had past so that everyone had cooled down.

As it is, everyone is still geared up and in a massive fightn' adrenaline mood.

None of them were in a fighting mood. They were in a run away/try and stay alive mood.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
1) Series Simon would've never hit Mal (or sucker punched) as he would know what series Mal would've done. Series Simon is a pacifist.

Remember just after he found out about Jayne betraying him and River in Ariel? Series Simon could've gotten him back in some way, but chose another route.

Simon would never hit Mal? The man who jumped from a second-story catwalk onto Dobson? The guy who threatened to let Kaylee die? The man who tried to push Jubal Early off a catwalk, charged Jubal Early in the cockpit, and jumped Jubal Early even after being shot? He did all those things to safeguard River.

You say he would never hit Mal? I say when it comes to his sister, we see what he's really willing to do.

And the revelation of Jayne selling them out? I think he did get him back. Finding out Simon knew while paralyzed and at Simon's mercy? Knowing that Simon could reveal his betrayal to the crew? I don't think Simon will kill in cold blood, so that's what he's left with for Jayne.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
2) Series Mal would've hit him.

In fact, in the series when Simon first came on board and just mentioned that Mal would be good working with the Alliance, Mal hit Simon.

Mal hits Simon twice. Once when he thinks Simon is an Alliance mole who has sold out his ship and crew, and once when Simon insults Mal's integrity and honor by suggesting that Mal cowardly serves the beck and call of the Alliance (moments after Mal has just threatened to toss Simon out an airlock if Kaylee -- part of his crew -- dies). In the second one Mal was already pissed and feeling violent toward Simon.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This is a worse infraction in some regards. Mal had just almost died and would've done more than just talk. Remember when the fed mole was on Serenity ep Serenity? Mal just killed him not even a blink. Series Mal would definitly have hit him.

The fed mole who had a gun to someone's head? The fed mole whose armed presence in the cargo bay was a direct obstacle to getting off Whitefall before the Reavers attacked and killed them all? That fed mole?

He shot Dobson to save himself, his his crew and his ship. I'd say those circumstances were significantly more severe than being sucker punched once by the ship's doctor.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
And no, Simon didn't get the point pretty quick. It took acouple tries for Mal to get through to him.

We must have different definitions of quick.

Simon: PUNCH
Mal: "Do you want me to shoot you?"
Simon: "Insult"
Mal: "I'm gonna shoot you."
Simon: "Here's my grievance."

That seems pretty quick to me.

And I find all of it to be consistent behavior that flows from their characters and their circumstances. Even things I didn't like (e.g., Kaylee being so much less cheerful) made perfect sense to me given their circumstances.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:11 PM

Sorry gotta disagree again. I don't want to get to be a pain. I guess I just gotta say when I disagree.

I thought the rescue seen was much like the scene in ariel. For Simon. It's how I had pictured it going, more or less. Maybe a little less bondy, but it didn't have me saying Nah, that wouldn't happen.

Joss knew it was a western, he knew the alliance was US, the evil was clearly a dominant rogue internal element.

River going all Terminator or whathaveyou, that's how it was always going to go down. War Stories. No power in the verse can stop me. Remember? This is clearly headed to this slaughter scene one hundred percent of the time. I think this is what I expected to see from about episode one. It was awesome too.

Physics doesn't apply here. or is it physics don't? Anyway. River, what she does, it's way past what buffy does but it's perfectly in the bounds of reality. It wasn't just movie fantasy that ninjas could fight like that, it's an art.

River never exhibits superhuman strength. Take the ninja. He practices meditation, learns how to quiet the signal down to next to nothing, and kick his mental adrenalin into high gear. Now magnify that power. Take someone who can silence the signal completely, sideline it, and then see it, as if it were an image, and can kick up norepinephrine to a level that would kill an unmodified brain.

Next to her, everyone else would be standing still. This isn't a defiance of physics, it's just defying what we know as normalcy in humans. Take a look at animals or insects. Combat situations like this clearly exist. Even commonplace ones like hornets vs. bees. One hornet can take out a thousand bees single-handedly. And it doesn't have anywhere near the advantage that River does.

I don't attempt to get into Joss' politics. I know that he's a libertarian, with a small l, as in not the party, but that much is extremely obvious. If anyone missed the whole "we're anarchists" thing in buffy, it was the same sort of perspective. Joss is basically saying: Civilization, who needs it. I think the implication is always that the ultimately "civilized" society is an ant hill, and who would want to live in such a society? But I can't speak for Joss. That's just the civil libertarian thread I see as the overwhelming political statement of the shows, which in itself is not particularly right/left.

I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:25 PM

RACEFANZ

i think howie may be a kook

those that beat swords into plowshares will farm for those of us that dont

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:31 PM

RACEFANZ

This site is the best for general movie finanical, etc. information. The BDM still hasnt broke even.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=serenity.htm

Those that beat their swords into plowshares will farm for those of us that dont.

Steve from Yuma....OUT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:09 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
Simon would never hit Mal? The man who jumped from a second-story catwalk onto Dobson? The guy who threatened to let Kaylee die? The man who tried to push Jubal Early off a catwalk, charged Jubal Early in the cockpit, and jumped Jubal Early even after being shot? He did all those things to safeguard River.

You say he would never hit Mal? I say when it comes to his sister, we see what he's really willing to do.

Okay, I'm gonna try my hand at this kooky argument. Have any of you arguing these points every thrown a punch? It is just about the stupidest way to make your point. Some people would say it was childish in the extreme and very low class, know what I mean? That's why Simon wouldn't punch Mal, because it is totally beneath him and pointless. It's something semi-trained apes do to prove who's the biggest ape. Simon was just a little bit like a real person, with certain limitations of character and personality before he got injected with rowdy-pop-corn-movie DNA in Serenity.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:08 AM

SEP7IMUS

This thread is already so long that it takes WAY too long to laod in my browser, but I can't resist adding to it...

One thing I agree with is that River was clearly always heading in this direction. She had clearly been designed to be some sort of super-human, psychic, weapon, hence the preternatural fighting skills even on the series ("War Stories").

If you were surprised to see that change in the movie, I can't understand why. Not only was it pretty clear from the movie, and from Joss's previous shows, but the advertisements and trailers fetured River kicking ass pretty prominently.

If you were disappointed to see that change, well, I guess you can be, but it certainly wasn't an unexpected or sudden shift in character (well, except that it happened faster, given the time constraints of a movie).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:37 AM

Your interpretation of "civilization" and
"we're anarchists" is very faulty.

Anarchism is civilization from the bottom
up not top down!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:11 AM

MAJINBUU

Kestrel - I enjoyed your post very much, but I must correct you on one point. The bridge was always blue. The engine room and the dining hall and Inara's shuttle had the orange and red warm tones, the hallways and the engine room had blue tones, and the cargo bay was all grey.

But to the complaining:
------------------------------------
SPOILER WARNING *** SPOILER WARNING**
------------------------------------

For me, Joss Whedon is like Chris Carter, i.e. I always complain as much as I praise. But, I took most of the character differences in stride, as more of a regression (for the sake of newbies)than out of character. And I enjoyed the movie a great deal, though I agree it was not as character driven as the show, or as I would have liked. But I was very angry about Wash's demise, and think I personally would have acted out of character if I had run into Joss Whedon in the parking lot. What angered me was that it seemed to serve no purpose at all other than to rip our hearts out and show them to us. (I don't find any of the above justifications very compelling.) And what really sent me over the edge, was that Joss seems to really LOVE doing this. He has never ended a series without knocking off a couple main characters, often senselessly. (Enya anyone?) As soon as Wash said "I am a leaf" for the third time, I saw it coming. At least in the Buffyverse there were loopholes. I am only hoping that should there be any subsequent Firefly productions they will take place prior to these events, because I would miss Wash.

All I can say to Joss is, "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"

I do have many GOOD things to say about the movie, but that is for another post.

"Pain is scary."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:26 AM

MAJINBUU

Just one more thing, on the River ninja action. First off, I loved it. It was a beautifully shot mesmerizing scene. A Clockwork Orange mixture of dance and violence. But as to the topic at hand, who didn't see this coming? The series was clearly heading in that direction. They were already calling her "assassin" by the end. I have no problem with her being able to dodge bullets. "She did it with math."

But not to expect a 90lb. waif ninja from Joss, is like not expecting the innocent to die in the last episode.

"Pain is scary."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:10 AM

You misread (as most seem to do on this site)
I was saying that BUFFY does not conform to
the laws of physics BUFFY is mystical where
as River is a product of science albeit evil
science.

On Civilization the term needs defining.

If one is reading "Civilization" to mean a
heavy controlled concentration of power and
population then say I agree with both your
interpretation and Joss's sentiment "who needs
it!?" But if one defines "Civilization" as
a caring and civil society of social empathy
and laws or ethics that protect all from
harmful intent then that is a different
entirely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:43 AM

I was assuming civilization to be used in the way the romans used it to differentiate themselves from the barbarians.
The barbarians were not technologically inferior.
If the issue is ethics, than ethics are enforced by a govt. through a unilateral display of power. I know this idea is repulsive to some people, the whole concept of top-down society is repulsive to me. But it's also true. Firefly outter planets life is devoid of ethical values. Did anyone miss this not too subtle detail?
But civilization in the roman sense was really about order. The barbarian's social order was freaking chaos. It's pretty clear that Joss would rather live with the barbarians than with the romans, and so would most of the fans, that's why the show has it's anti-civilized bias.
But anyway, that was the sense in which i was interpreting the word; not trying to pull a monopoly on interpretations of the word.

Of course the sexiness was foregone conclusion. For Joss I suspect killing lots of people with an axe is foreplay. Not a sign of sickness, a sign of actual maleness. Unlike the eunichs who seem to write most tv programming.

:)

I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Okay, I'm gonna try my hand at this kooky argument. Have any of you arguing these points every thrown a punch? It is just about the stupidest way to make your point. Some people would say it was childish in the extreme and very low class, know what I mean? That's why Simon wouldn't punch Mal, because it is totally beneath him and pointless. It's something semi-trained apes do to prove who's the biggest ape. Simon was just a little bit like a real person, with certain limitations of character and personality before he got injected with rowdy-pop-corn-movie DNA in Serenity.

Yes, punching someone is stupid and pointless, and possibly even low class (although I think it is brawling, not punching, that is low class -- boxing was a sport learned by the upper class).

That doesn't mean upper class people don't do it. (In "Shindig" we even see that the upper class have a protocol for when it happens: it's treated as a challenge for a duel.)

Simon almost lost the person he has sacrificed everything for because of the captain's decision. By this point I'd argue the idea of doing something "beneath him" isn't a concern. He was angry but restrained before the job (although angry enough to get in Mal's face). Now his sister has been attacked by Reavers, and been part of a crash landing into the cargo bay. That makes the angry man angrier, and I have no doubt that Simon, high class or not, would be willing to toss off a punch as a result of that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:02 PM

SHUAIJAN

Quote:
Originally posted by sagrilarus:
At the risk of having a hit called out on me, I'll keep the details of my opinions quiet. But I was very disappointed with the movie. With any luck, I am the only one. No one else here seems to be expressing that feeling. Just thought I'd toss it out and see if I'm alone or not.

The only thing that I found disappointing was the special effects during the crash landing sequence. I felt that the effects were a bit more towards the TV quality end of the special effects spectrum than the motion picture quality end. Other than that, it was pretty

!

"I'll be in my bunk." - Jayne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:34 PM

Yes I agree but as said on an earlier post:
Why is it too much to ask of Joss that there
be a planet who represent a progressive society
a philosophy of living that is anti-Alliance
not "strange, archaic or even barbaric" to
quote Joss from the Telegraph interview. Why
can't their be at least one planet where the
ethics of the society are worth fighting for?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:10 PM

Sorry for the long post. It's amazing on how much can happen in under 24 hrs.

@Sneaker98:
Read my posts. And don't be such an ass.

@Teraph:
"""
None of them were in a fighting mood. They were in a run away/try and stay alive mood.
"""

I'll give you that. But, when one is rather charged up from getting almost killed and rather on the edge from one of those nasty things almost killing you, having a punch thrown at you and landing has a necessary reply. Mal didn't do it.

"""
Simon would never hit Mal?

... blah blah blah ...
"""

Simon did those things when it involved River and no-one else.

So, if he was so inclined to hit Mal, riddle me this. How come when Mal hit him in Serenity (ep not movie), why didn't Simon even move to hit Mal or really show any real anger/willingness to hit Mal back?

"""
And the revelation of Jayne selling them out?

... snip ...
"""

I'm talking about physical realization of revenge/retribution because that is the context we are talking it. Tell me, how does this fit into such a context?

"""
Mal hits Simon twice. Once when he thinks Simon is an Alliance mole who has sold out his ship and crew, and once when Simon insults Mal's integrity and honor by suggesting that Mal cowardly serves the beck and call of the Alliance (moments after Mal has just threatened to toss Simon out an airlock if Kaylee -- part of his crew -- dies). In the second one Mal was already pissed and feeling violent toward Simon.
"""

Then tell me how being on a mission and almost killed doesn't make one grumpy.

"""
The fed mole who had a gun to someone's head? The fed mole whose armed presence in the cargo bay was a direct obstacle to getting off Whitefall before the Reavers attacked and killed them all? That fed mole?

He shot Dobson to save himself, his his crew and his ship. I'd say those circumstances were significantly more severe than being sucker punched once by the ship's doctor.
"""

My point is (since you missed that part) that he killed him without even blinking or thinking about it. It kind of tells of a certain mentality when they had to get off world quickly. Tell me, how does Reavers around make this not the case. Getting off world quickly that is.

"""
We must have different definitions of quick.
"""

This is my definition, what's yours:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quick
"""
Done or occurring immediately
"""

"""
And I find all of it to be consistent behavior that flows from their characters and their circumstances. Even things I didn't like (e.g., Kaylee being so much less cheerful) made perfect sense to me given their circumstances.
"""

And what exactly were there circumstances? The same things that we saw them deal with in the series (aside from later on, but we aren't really discussing that part of the movie right now). So, different reactions, same circumstances.

Could it be that they are different characters? \begin{dripping sarcasm}No, it couldn't be, that'd just down right make sense. Must be something else.\end{dripping sarcasm}

@Ferrex:
"""
Maybe some of you are wearing purple under yours. Us Browncoats don't leave none behind, and that includes Joss and Serenity.
"""

It's think kind of "yes men" mentality that makes things go south in the first place. It has no place in the Browcoat world. I'll think and say as I like and not have anyone define what I can or cannot say. Such a thing is rather Alliance ways of thinking. Valid criticism is valid criticism. And when someone deviates from the established, I'll call them on it, period.

Everyone keeps saying that Joss had to do change things to let people in on what the show was about, etc, etc, etc. Well he did it rather effectively in the Train Job and wrote that in literally a weekend. So, what's his excuse for having to change things now? Fact of the matter is that he could've written another one like the Train Job (techniques for explaining things and such) and just changed what they were to do.

Now, what I'm not saying is having the Train Job the movie but not a Train Job. It's just that he's already done what he set out to do in the movie without changing things, and them some. So again, what's his excuse for changing things now?

"""
"It was important that people understand that the movie isn't the series. The movie is bigger, more epic than anything you can do in a series." - Joss Whedon
"""

And what I got from this was, same character, same universe, more unbelievable/epic story line. Anything else, and you can't claim to be akin to Firefly.

@DreamTrove:

Select to view spoiler:

From the point of view of someone who gets a happy everytime river goes crazy and starts hacking people up, this movie was a 10

And that means that you like action movies with lots of violence. Remind me again, how many times in the series did we see anything like that? Oh yah, zero. The series wasn't action oriented driven. So, why did the movie have to be?

I find it insulting that Joss had to kill what he created just to (me thinks) pander to the masses to get sales up. It's like he thinks everyone is a moron and can't handle something that'll require something of an attention span, so he made something for the non-Firefly fan and only put in a few moments of its original glory.

I am not a moron, and I expected something more than an action movie. I wanted more Firefly, or something like it. This was neither. It was something new advertised as movie version of something old. It'll be a long time before I forgive Joss for this flagrant false advertising.

"""
But joss has him leaving people to die if they don't help him. and he does a serious mind f*&^ on Jayne.
"""

You don't know if he would've let Kaylee die. Mal never gave him the chance. All we know is that he wanted to let Mal think that he'd let her die. Such a thing is but conjecture.

And he didn't do a mind f**k on Jayne, River did. What Simon did was make a point. One that even Jayne would get. I know what you did, but if you are under my care, you don't have to worry. That surely would have scared Jayne for the first part of the speach, but not the last part. He would've been put at ease (more or less).

"""
I remember seeing Buffy the movie when it came out. I loved it. It was irreverent sort of clueless with vampires, which was a definite upgrade. But when I saw the show at first I didn
't get into it because it wasn't like the movie at all. Then in time I got addicted and now the show is way more precious to me.
"""

Well, Joss was making a movie that we all don't know if he intended to make it into a series (do we know this, because I've never heard such a thing).

But, when it comes down to it, to really compare that movie to the series, you'd have to only compare the style of dialogure and the character Buffy as those are the only two things that would be the same in both.

I know for one that the dialogue was almost the same. The classic wittyness of Joss is in there, just not well executed. After seeing the show, and it implemented how he wanted, you can really see it in the movie and those actors inability to pull it off.

As for the character herself. Been too long, can't do it. Anyone else?

One cannot expect all vampires to behave the same nor the atmosphere be the same as she changed cities and had different worries. What she went through in the movie is also non-trivial. So, same character, exactly no, mostly should be, unless Joss only went that direction b/c the actress sucked and couldn't pull off what he wanted.

Anyway, I've been meaning to pick it up. Perhaps next time I'm in a store I'll look in the bargine/old movie section to see if it's there. Thanks for reminding me

@Howard:
Interesting points. I agree

@DreamTrove:
"""
Sorry gotta disagree again. I don't want to get to be a pain. I guess I just gotta say when I disagree.
"""

I think that's how these forums work

"""
I thought the rescue seen was much like the scene in ariel.
"""

Um, what? Simon in the movie as cool and calm and you wouldn't have known he was non-Alliance if you hadn't watched the show. In Ariel, Simon was acting nervous and you could tell that something wasn't right if you looked closely. Remember after he saved that guys life. During he was ok, but after he dressed that other doc down, with his quick getaway, etc, not so much.

"""
River going all Terminator or whathaveyou, that's how it was always going to go down. War Stories. No power in the verse can stop me. Remember? This is clearly headed to this slaughter scene one hundred percent of the time. I think this is what I expected to see from about episode one. It was awesome too.
"""

LOL, so you are now one with Joss' thoughts and know what he was planning all along? You nor anyone here knows what Joss was going to do with River. We know that she was a danger, and could do some... interesting things.

But, in the show, it was all about her mental abilities. Acuracy aside from being strong and steady enough to shoot a gun in mental rather that physical.

There was no mention of her being physically enhanced in any way during the run of the series. It was all about her brain.

Which she could kill you with

"""
it's way past what buffy does but it's perfectly in the bounds of reality. It wasn't just movie fantasy that ninjas could fight like that, it's an art.
"""

Dude, I'd like to know what you've been smoking.

In the scene when River jumps out through the door we see her get hauled away by the Reavers. I'll say that again, we see her get hauled away by the Reavers.

To expect me to accept that she doesn't even get a scratch on her from this and from fighting them is well beyond the realm of reality. It's bloody rediculous.

"""
River never exhibits superhuman strength. Take the ninja. He practices meditation, learns how to quiet the signal down to next to nothing, and kick his mental adrenalin into high gear. Now magnify that power. Take someone who can silence the signal completely, sideline it, and then see it, as if it were an image, and can kick up norepinephrine to a level that would kill an unmodified brain.
"""

Perhaps you should look up what norepinephrine is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=norepinephrine
"""
A substance, C8H11NO3, both a hormone and neurotransmitter, secreted by the adrenal medulla and the nerve endings of the sympathetic nervous system to cause vasoconstriction and increases in heart rate, blood pressure, and the sugar level of the blood. Also called noradrenaline.
"""

So, she's supposed to have the ability to crank up this to the point that a normal human wouldn't be able to take it, but we're supposed to believe that the increased heart rate and increased blood pressure isn't enough to knock her out or kill her?

And your description about the ninja is nonsense. I suggest that you at least take a martial arts class before you start to talk about such things. That, or at least read something that non-fiction about them.

"""
And it doesn't have anywhere near the advantage that River does.
"""

Actually, it does have the ability to sting multiple times whereas the bee does not. So, it does have a significant advantage in that regard. Also, hornets are far more aggessive than bees and as such would have the better ability to fight than bees do. Google is your freind.

@HKCavalier:
Hi, been awhile

"""
Have any of you arguing these points every thrown a punch?
"""

In my yonger years (like most) when my cup of wisdom wasn't exactly overflowing.

To the rest of your post here. I would add that when Kaylee and Simon were talking in one ep she said to him, regarding politness, "It don't mean anything out here in the black." To which he replied, "I means more out here."

So, he would definitly have kept this going. Such things do not change that drastically in such a short period of time.

@Sep7imus:
"""
One thing I agree with is that River was clearly always heading in this direction. She had clearly been designed to be some sort of super-human, psychic, weapon, hence the preternatural fighting skills even on the series ("War Stories").
"""

What was so superhuman about her. That she had been trained to have memory? That she had been trained to see what direction people were moving in and at what speed? Anyone can guess with great accuracy such things. And if she was such the prodigy that she is refered to being then it isn't out of the realm of possibility that she would've been able to develope this skill.

There isn't anything superhuman about it.

Now what she did in the movie, was most definitly superhuman and there were no hints as to the direction. All other hints were possible with other explinations. Other explinations within the realm of reality.

"""
If you were surprised to see that change in the movie, I can't understand why. Not only was it pretty clear from the movie, and from Joss's previous shows, but the advertisements and trailers fetured River kicking ass pretty prominently.
"""

Do you forget that there are a great number of us that avoided such things like the plague?

"""
or sudden shift in character (well, except that it happened faster, given the time constraints of a movie).
"""

So, to go from just being able to shoot acuratly, with no obsurvable differences in physical strength wasn't a "sudden shift in character" then?

You're going to have to explain that one to me.

@Majinbuu:
"""
as more of a regression (for the sake of newbies)than out of character.
"""

We were all newbies when Train Job first aired and that did just fine to explain things.

"""
All I can say to Joss is, "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
"""

LOL

Indeed.

"""
agree it was not as character driven as the show, or as I would have liked.
"""

How was the movie character driven at all?

"""
Just one more thing, on the River ninja action. First off, I loved it. It was a beautifully shot mesmerizing scene.
"""

In any other movie, I'd agree. But this is based on Firefly, which changes things.

"""
The series was clearly heading in that direction. They were already calling her "assassin" by the end. I have no problem with her being able to dodge bullets. "She did it with math."
"""

An assassin doesn't do mass combat. They are discreet. This was not discreet.

"""
But not to expect a 90lb. waif ninja from Joss, is like not expecting lesbian undertones.
"""

Joss did say that he wanted to take a break from latex. A lot of what he did before (read: powerful woman warrior) was already in there (ie Zoe).

@Teraph:
"""
In "Shindig" we even see that the upper class have a protocol for when it happens: it's treated as a challenge for a duel
"""

The actual protocol is a slap in the face. Mal just happened to do it with his fist... unknowingly.

"""
although I think it is brawling
"""

Mal has also said in the series, "Just an honest brawl between folk" and something like "You should/It isn't polite to hit a man with a closed fist. But it is on occasion hilarious."

Mal is not beyond punching.

"""
By this point I'd argue the idea of doing something "beneath him" isn't a concern.
"""

See comment about conversation between series Simon and series Kaylee above.

"""
That makes the angry man angrier, and I have no doubt that Simon, high class or not, would be willing to toss off a punch as a result of that.
"""

Aside from the things prior that he's said that contradicts this, what evidence do you bring in favour of it?

@Shuaijan:
You bring up something that I wasn't terribly impressed with either. And really we're starting to be nit-picky here, but I didn't like the Serenity model. It was too shiny. The one in the series was grimy and such.

I remember other things that I think the series did better in this regard, but I'm a bit fuzzy on this as watching the movie wasn't exactly an experience for me. Maybe I'll revisit this when the DVD comes my way.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:54 PM

Quote:
Why is it too much to ask of Joss that there be ... where the ethics of the society are worth fighting for?

Okay. Because this is opposed to the whole concept of the show. I write short stories, well I try. And here's the thing:

A story has a message.
I as a writer have many beliefs, many of them political, moral, social, ethical. Maybe the truth that the story has the opportunity to expose is in line with one of those. Maybe it isn't. Perhaps the story exposes a truth which is in violation of my own personal political beliefs. But it's the story's message that matters.

Does this sound absurd. Well, it's not. You get used to it.

One of my political beliefs is I'm anti-war. I'm anti this war, in Iraq, but I'm anti-war in general. I have lots of problems with war, on many levels. I think it's a human right disaster, and ecological disaster and a diplomatic disaster, and basically a bad way to settle political differences.

Either you agree with that position or you don't.

Now these are our beliefs, as they currently stand.

However, I may be writing a story, and maybe the message thta the story seems to want to tell is "Sometimes you have to fight for what you believe in."

Objectively, should that happen, which it undoubtedly will now that I've said it, I have several choices.

I can

1) Try to follow the path and tell them message that does not mesh with my own personal beliefs.
2) remove that message and transplant a pre-conceived peace message from my own political philosophy.
3) While I'm at it attach my personal position on the importance of environmental conservation even if it doesn't seem to fit.

Now if I choose option 2 or 3, I'm just not a very good writer. If I choose option one, there may still be places where I can innovate. I could innovate in a boring way by showing the audience for a 219th time "War is hell" or maybe I can find more subtle ways to not undermine the story's message, but perhaps clarify a view points of contention that I have, such as whether or not carpet bombing of civillian populations is an effective combat tactic for someone who wants to win on and idealogical level.

As you can see, when you let go of what you hold dear, and are willing to write something that objectively may support the other side, you have actually opened up a whole new world of opportunities. In time I might even convince my self that some of my current ideas about war always being a bad idea are wrong. I'm not predicting that this would be the case, but everything is possible.

As for firefly, specifically, it's not about the perfect ethical society where men are angels. It's not about effective government control of the populous.

Firefly is very very clearly a western, a frontier story, a story about a new frontier, a chance for society to start over completely free from the shackles of old oppressive government, and the eternal struggle of old oppressive government trying to prevent that from taking place.

It's a story that is civil libertarian in nature. Does this make Joss a civil libertarian? No, it doesn't. I suspect he has strong leanings in that direction because a similar theme was also present in buffy.

Also, I want to try to put a lid on what I think is a misconception. Ethics are concerns of an ordered society. Perfect utopian govt. worries about ethics. Ethics are not a major concern of civil libertarian society which is more concerned directly with freedom and rights, rather than preventing people from doing what others might perceive as morally wrong. This latter is what big govt. does.

Finally, there is an obvious point about ethics which is pertinent right now. It's a safe bet that firefly fans include Democrats and Republicans in equal numbers, and a fair number of independents. So please no one take this as a slight against Republicans or Democrats, I have nothing against the voters, or their elected officials. I do have a gripe with certain heads, and specifically, to give equal time here, Bush and Clinton both deserve this. Which deserves more probably depends on your party affilliation. Anyway, Now and in the Future, whether it's Jeb or Hillary, there is going to be an ongoing ethical problem. Code of conduct at the top level of govt. is going to be take the people for all you can get as quick as you can and pocket all the cash for yourself.

If you think I'm being too harsh on them, I'm not being harsh enough. Between the two of them, they've been directly responsible for over a million civilian deaths. These people and their enterages (sp?) are an ethical nightmare. So is this an issue? Sure it is.

But firefly is not a world about presenting a perfect ethical paradigm. If it addresses the issue at all, it will do so by showing the most tremendous ethical depravity possible, probably in govt.

I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:24 PM

BRUISERSMOM

I walked out after second viewing. I just didn't feel like sticking it out until the end and I only bought the tickets in the hope that there will be sequels so that I can see the end of the story.

My problems with the movie vs. the tv show have been mentioned often in other peoples' posts. They have to do with changing the characters' personalities and thereby changing the chemistry of the characters as they interact with one another. I am not going to forgive Joss any time soon for killing Book and Wash and their deaths will loop back into changing the way the characters interact with one another by removing the contributions that they make to the Serenity crew. For example, Kaylee is alone to bring levity to the crew because Wash isn't there to bring his goofiness to them. Wash's death also points to another element that I miss, which is the humor in the series. The movie just didn't seem to have enough of it for me to offset the all of the serious drama and intense action sequences that seemed to drive the movie and made me feel like I was on a roller coaster and not kicking back on the couch enjoying the dialog.

Some other random things that aren't going to draw me in. I know that the writers on the show were bringing Simon and Kaylee together but I don't see them together as a successful couple and because of that I'm not going to invest a lot of my emotional energy into that relationship. Even though Wash and Zoe are opposites, there was a comfort and respect in their relationship that was intriguing to watch. With Kaylee and Simon, I keep on seeing them fail to connect. There are a lot of examples in the tv show but think about in the movie when they were hunkered down to fight the reavers and Simon said that his biggest regret was not being with Kaylee during the past eight months. I got the feeling that Simon was talking about being with Kaylee in more than a physical way but Kaylee didn't seem to get it and was just hyped that she was getting laid by the fair doctor. I think Sean did a good job of making Simon look momentarily confused by Kaylee's response.

But anyway, I babble.

"You can keep a dog; but it is the cat who keeps people, because cats find humans useful domestic animals."--George Mikes

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:24 PM

BRUISERSMOM

I walked out during my second and third viewing. I just didn't feel like sticking it out until the end of the movie and I only bought the tickets in the hope that there will be sequels so that I can see the end of the story.

My problems with the movie vs. the tv show have been mentioned often in other peoples' posts. They have to do with changing the characters' personalities and thereby changing the chemistry of the characters as they interact with one another. I am not going to forgive Joss any time soon for killing Book and Wash and their deaths will loop back into changing the way the characters interact with one another by removing the contributions that they make to the Serenity crew. For example, Kaylee is alone to bring levity to the crew because Wash isn't there to bring his goofiness to them. Wash's death also points to another element that I miss, which is the humor in the series. The movie just didn't seem to have enough of it for me to offset the all of the serious drama and intense action sequences that seemed to drive the movie and made me feel like I was on a roller coaster and not kicking back on the couch enjoying the dialog.

Some other random things that aren't going to draw me in. I know that the writers on the show were bringing Simon and Kaylee together but I don't see them together as a successful couple and because of that I'm not going to invest a lot of my emotional energy into that relationship. Even though Wash and Zoe are opposites, there was a comfort and respect in their relationship that was intriguing to watch. With Kaylee and Simon, I keep on seeing them fail to connect. There are a lot of examples in the tv show but think about in the movie when they were hunkered down to fight the reavers and Simon said that his biggest regret was not being with Kaylee during the past eight months. I got the feeling that Simon was talking about being with Kaylee in more than a physical way but Kaylee didn't seem to get it and was just hyped that she was getting laid by the fair doctor. I think Sean did a good job of making Simon look momentarily confused by Kaylee's response.

But anyway, I babble.

"You can keep a dog; but it is the cat who keeps people, because cats find humans useful domestic animals."--George Mikes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:43 PM

BRUISERSMOM

Quote:

One last question, and this is a big one -- hundreds if not thousands of dedicated, rabid fans such as us (including some of the people reading this) saw this thing in previews months ago. Why did not one of you speak up in any way about this? Based on the word on the street, this film was all that and a bag of chips. The reviews were just obscenely good. Did not one person in any of these showings question the very different characters that were presented? How did I get hit with such a curveball without warning?

Sag.

Some people did say something but they were silenced by other people saying how much can you tell from a preview? Don't judge the movie until you see it in the theater. Some other people told themselves that too. And, some other people hoped that an additional preview would shed some light on the movie that would show that it isn't what they suspect from the two previews that were released. That third preview never came and then they saw the movie and thought, "Agh, I was right!"

Some people refused to be spoiled by spoilers but among those who wanted to know what was going on had to deal with some very vague accounts of what the movie was about. Word about the deaths of Wash and Book got out among this group and a lot of debate was generated about it.

One final word, anyone who saw the previews of the movie had to deal with an onslaught from people who didn't want any spoilers posted on the board, so I think a lot of people kept their mouths shut until after the general release of the movie.

Unfortunately, this board doesn't have a function where you can search for archived threads about a topic and threads are archived very quickly when a lot of people have new threads that they want to get out there, so it would be difficult to go back and look at these old threads.

"You can keep a dog; but it is the cat who keeps people, because cats find humans useful domestic animals."--George Mikes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:17 PM

LADYBLUE

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:
People say Mal was darker. I find this silly. Mal wasn't darker, he was angrier. Angrier does not equal darker; just angrier.

SigmaNunki:

Great job. I like reading your comments. Just one thing. I got the term of Mal being darker from a Nathan Fillion interview. You can check it out at:

http://www.greatlink.org/dcisV2.asp?url=http://www.greatlink.org/shown
ewsitem.asp?item=2158

or I cut and paste some of it here:

10 Nov 2004 Nathan Fillion on the dark side of Capt. Mal Reynolds in Firefly movie
Reported at TGL by Chris Howell at 00:31 BST

From Sci-Fi Wire:

Nathan Fillion—who stars in the upcoming SF movie Serenity, based on Fox's canceled series Firefly—told SCI FI Wire that his character, Capt. Mal Reynolds, will be a little darker than he was allowed to be in the TV show. "I think he's still on that same vein," Fillion said in an interview during a break in filming at Universal Studios in Los Angeles last August. "I think if anything, I think he's a little darker than he was before. I think he's a little more empty than he was before. He, too, has had the rug pulled out from under him a couple of times since we've known him in the series. And I also think that, because we're in a film, another difference versus television is we can be allowed to be darker. ... We don't have a ... TV producer saying, 'Make him more likable and funny.'"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:38 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Whether you're disappointed or not, you guys have GOT TO read this synopsis of Serenity. It is ROTFLOL hi-larious. The funny thing about this "Serenity in 2000 words" is that it actually can appeal to both those who were disappointed and those who loved it. It makes fun of the movie, but in an affectionate way.

http://www.swartzer.com/writing/serenity2000.php

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:11 PM

SNEAKER98

Quote:
Read my posts. And don't be such an ass.

Tough not to be an ass versus such a flawed argument.

Mal backed down from Simon? What, when he threatened to riddle him with holes after the sucker-punch? Or when he warned him not to give orders on his boat?

Maybe it'll take a stop to dictionary.com, but I'm fairly certain that doesn't qualify as 'backing down'.

Find a real reason to hate the movie.

"I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
-Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:56 PM

Oh boy I simply used "ethics" to keep things simple and you have gone and built a mountain. Albeit a very well written mountain.

I love FIREFLY and I enjoyed the nihilistic values in it. But all I was saying was in response to Joss in the Telegraph interview who seems to believe that there is only the following chocies:

ALLIANCE
a strange alternative (he does not clarify "strange")
an archaic alternative
or a barbaric alternative

Joss can't seem to imagine an enlightened alternative to the ALLIANCE.

I was not implying anything about people being angels I love FIREFLY partly because they not after all they are thieves!!

But they are thieves with ethics on FIREFLY
MAL has a code even though he often pretends he has less ethics than he does.

Also in your real world references my own take is that Americans engaged in arguements along party lines is a joke. The Neo-Cons or at least their supporters who tend to be religious are mostly naive and uninformed beyond belief while the Kerry voting Clintonites are an even bigger obstacle to progressive change as they refuse to see the real problem (the empire) and their role in it. The issue is the American Empire not Rep or Dem. Kerry was going to send an additional 100,000 troops to Iraq. Even Bush isn't doing that. Hillary Clinton refuses to call for a withdrawal, she might as well run with Condi Rice not against her. On Foreign Policy they are identical.

In our own world right now there is an alternative happen and its called the Bolivarian
revolution...while the source my top down the realisation is very much grass roots and bottom up. What Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela is using the wealth and amenities of a state to provide the tools to poor people and poor countries to get the leg up they need so they can take charge here-on in. Where great poverty exists due to prior regimes the state is very much needed to play a role. In the Bolivarian revolution they have achieved a healthy balance
between the state and the grass roots. The state provides communities with what they need but it is local communities who run things and decisions are made in a democratic way within the community.
Plus the national government is also elected.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:00 PM